I haven’t thought much about parenting in general, and don’t have kids. Overall this seems like an interesting and probably valuable approach. But it also feels very individualistic, which would make me concerned in applying this myself. I expect that most Westerners, and especially Americans, are already too individualistic, and that it’d be useful for them to think of families and friendships more as cohesive units—as opposed to combinations of individuals, which is what it seems like your approach pushes towards. The two most salient examples of this for me:
Often they wanted me to lift them or support them in their climbing, and I wouldn’t.
and
I told her that if she left the trike it would be available for anyone to take. And that I would probably take it, but it would then be my trike.
This sort of distinction between parents’ property and children’s property seems strange to me. What would be the consequences of this becoming your trike—especially given that you bought it for her in the first place? Apparently it worked in this case, but still… idk.
Jeff’s approach to parenting is shockingly similar to mine, and I actually feel exactly the opposite regarding individualism (at least insofar as individualism is equated with being antisocial). I am perfectly willing to help my children with any number of things, but I want them to *understand* the cost to other people when they need help or when they make a mess they’re not willing to clean up.
It feels more prosocial (to me) for them to understand that other people are people too, with their own needs, rather than to operate under the belief that they are entitled to someone’s time and effort simply because they want it.
I also believe it’s prosocial to give our time and effort where we can be helpful, and I try to teach them that as well.
The result is that our family is very cohesive, everyone sincerely grateful for help, and similarly more inclined to help because it feels like a gift we are able to provide for each other, rather than an obligation.
Those two examples actually feel very different to me!
In climbing, they have a desire to be up high that, if I don’t get in the way, they’ll use to learn how to climb up and down. If I step in, either by prohibiting climbing or by letting them get the benefits without putting in the work, that keeps this from working.
With the trike, if she chooses to bring the trike away from the house it’s her job to bring it back again. I wouldn’t want to get into a pattern where we leave the house with all her stuff and then she expects me to pack it back home again, especially if both kids might expect me to carry their things (trike + bike could be a lot for me!) If she had decided to leave the trike, and I’d brought it home, I hadn’t thought about what I’d do next. I probably would have put it in the basement. At some point she would probably ask for it back, and then maybe I would have offered to sell it back to her for a few weeks worth of her allowance? This sounds a bit weird and maybe mean, but compare it to the alternatives of (a) the child can at any point abandon their things and expect the parent will handle it or (b) the parent forces the child to bring their stuff home.
As for what it would mean for it to be “my trike”, the idea that some things in the house belong to different people is pretty normal to them: they know I’d be grumpy if they used my toothbrush, they each have some toys that are theirs (along with a lot of others that are communal).
I think it’s important for people to learn how interpersonal boundaries work. Anna could ask me to bring the trike back, and I might decide to say yes to be nice, but I’m not obligated to say yes. I would like to raise my kids to be nice and help people out, but also to know when they’re asking for a favor and know what sort of requests they can say no to.
I haven’t thought much about parenting in general, and don’t have kids. Overall this seems like an interesting and probably valuable approach. But it also feels very individualistic, which would make me concerned in applying this myself. I expect that most Westerners, and especially Americans, are already too individualistic, and that it’d be useful for them to think of families and friendships more as cohesive units—as opposed to combinations of individuals, which is what it seems like your approach pushes towards. The two most salient examples of this for me:
and
This sort of distinction between parents’ property and children’s property seems strange to me. What would be the consequences of this becoming your trike—especially given that you bought it for her in the first place? Apparently it worked in this case, but still… idk.
Jeff’s approach to parenting is shockingly similar to mine, and I actually feel exactly the opposite regarding individualism (at least insofar as individualism is equated with being antisocial). I am perfectly willing to help my children with any number of things, but I want them to *understand* the cost to other people when they need help or when they make a mess they’re not willing to clean up.
It feels more prosocial (to me) for them to understand that other people are people too, with their own needs, rather than to operate under the belief that they are entitled to someone’s time and effort simply because they want it.
I also believe it’s prosocial to give our time and effort where we can be helpful, and I try to teach them that as well.
The result is that our family is very cohesive, everyone sincerely grateful for help, and similarly more inclined to help because it feels like a gift we are able to provide for each other, rather than an obligation.
Those two examples actually feel very different to me!
In climbing, they have a desire to be up high that, if I don’t get in the way, they’ll use to learn how to climb up and down. If I step in, either by prohibiting climbing or by letting them get the benefits without putting in the work, that keeps this from working.
With the trike, if she chooses to bring the trike away from the house it’s her job to bring it back again. I wouldn’t want to get into a pattern where we leave the house with all her stuff and then she expects me to pack it back home again, especially if both kids might expect me to carry their things (trike + bike could be a lot for me!) If she had decided to leave the trike, and I’d brought it home, I hadn’t thought about what I’d do next. I probably would have put it in the basement. At some point she would probably ask for it back, and then maybe I would have offered to sell it back to her for a few weeks worth of her allowance? This sounds a bit weird and maybe mean, but compare it to the alternatives of (a) the child can at any point abandon their things and expect the parent will handle it or (b) the parent forces the child to bring their stuff home.
As for what it would mean for it to be “my trike”, the idea that some things in the house belong to different people is pretty normal to them: they know I’d be grumpy if they used my toothbrush, they each have some toys that are theirs (along with a lot of others that are communal).
I think it’s important for people to learn how interpersonal boundaries work. Anna could ask me to bring the trike back, and I might decide to say yes to be nice, but I’m not obligated to say yes. I would like to raise my kids to be nice and help people out, but also to know when they’re asking for a favor and know what sort of requests they can say no to.